Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Brookfield (geneticist)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 01:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

John Brookfield (geneticist)


Linkless article on a college professor. Does not satisfy WP:BIO - there is no evidence that it is more noteworthy than an average university professor. He has some publications (as do most college professors), but nothing indicates that these are particularly noteworthy. Dsreyn 18:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. NN academic, and the page is a near-copy of the subject's page at his university, here. Cheers, Sam Clark 20:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable research scientist with 55 publications at PubMed link. Full professor at one of the top UK universities. Way more noteworthy than the average college teacher. Edison 21:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm taking WP:PROF as the standard of notability, and I don't see any evidence in the article (or in a fast websearch) that the subject meets any of those criteria. But of course PROF isn't policy. Edison: are you using a different standard of notability, or do you think Brookfield meets a PROF criterion? Cheers, Sam Clark 14:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Whisp e ring 01:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Note - I just posted an FYI at WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology/Announcements where there may be folks that are versed on this topic. If this is not an appropriate action of mine, please just kindly advise. Thanks! --Keesiewonder 12:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * keep. Being in that project myself, he is by far notable enough. Number of publication, combined with Professor rank at a university is enough. (Number depends on field, but I can think of no field in bio where 25 or so would not be enough, and he has twice that.)  There seems to be a certain bias against academics if AfDs are placed  even if they have status as high as this.  The current WP:PROF discussions do not have the least consensus, and are simply not an accepted criterion in WP, especially in science.  But I highly commend the approach taken here of asking WP people in the subject if they want to comment. DGG 05:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. The number of publications you say he has may be valid, but his notability needs to be established in the article.  As it now stands, I don't really see how the article makes the case.  It's not incumbent on those unfamiliar with the subject to do web searches to determine his notability. Dsreyn 21:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete He does not meet the criteria proposed at Notability (academics). Yes, he has made contributions but they are not of lasting and profound importance. DrKiernan 12:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, DGG. I'm glad my effort may have helped and was probably appropriate. Elsewhere, I've (almost) been warned about WP:NOVOTE when I've mentioned this tactic. So, that is something to consider as well. Keesiewonder 12:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - per Edison and DGG. Keesiewonder 12:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.